Comparing sports sims to FPS just doesn't work. I'm not a die hard Madden or any other sports series buyer. But usually the people who are are the ones who have been buying it since SNES, the roster updates and small changes they don't mind. The people that keep these franchises afloat probably don't play many other franchises, so they spend their $60 a year on the new Madden and are set.

Sports games are different. THey are released each year mainly because the sport teams in the pros are always changing so they need to have the roster updated and what not.

Click to expand...

My only response to all three of these sentiments is that you're big fans of whatever sport you cheer for, and don't want to admit to the same thing that the main stream is not admitting to. You are content with what you have now, and don't really want any game changing changes made.

1) A properly structured game can have a non-static roster. Player skins/models are easy to add assuming that you have a console save file for the new players. Last time I checked a simple table of mathematical values describes each player, and the player skin is just a texture over a wireframe model. This is very easy to include in a DLC package. This answers:

THey are released each year mainly because the sport teams in the pros are always changing so they need to have the roster updated and what not. And they cant just do that from game updates over the internet. Cuz they need to create the models and such for each new player for each team. However I havent boughten a Sports game since like NBA LIVe 06 and NFL fever for Xbox Original.

Click to expand...

2) They are a different genre, so what. My point was not that they were the same genre, it was that the fundamental structures of both are very similar. They exist by having a largely unchanged set of core mechanics, with a few set dressing changes between revisions. Madden has remained largely unchanged, with the exception of graphics, since the early 2000's. Choose a play, run the play with a potential play shift, repeat. COD has been choose a class (rock-paper-scissors balanced), shoot a guy, repeat. Honestly, this mechanic hasn't ever changed for shooters, but the real disappointment is less the acceptable multiplayer and more the lackluster story missions.

Additionally, change without purpose is stupidity. 10vs10 basketball is not a well thought out change. Something like a persistent online ranking, which allows you to unlock better players for your custom team as you play, is a logical and reasonable move forward. This is my answer to:

Geez, I wonder why? You want NBA 2K13 to feature 10v10 games? Or Madden to be a "can only score using touchdowns" American football?

The engines I could understand since they really have console roots in the first place anyway.

I don't know about Madden, but several sports games doesn't "satisfy" your "criteria."

Football Manager 2012 is actually quite different from 2011. FIFA 12 have several features not in FIFA 11. NBA 2K12 have an updated interface, more "legends", and some "realism" enhancements too.

Click to expand...

3) Pigeon holing fans of sports games is foolish. If they spend $300 on a console they're likely to spend some money on games that aren't sports related. If you assume that the only thing they buy is yearly sports games you say they are willing to settle for rehashed crap. Nobody I know that owns sports games only plays sports games, and it stands to reason that there would be very few people out there, aside from die hard fans, that would fit into this category.

Assuming that this supposition is correct, you can still have DLC that will earn a publisher money. Imagine three yearly DLC packs, on a game that lasts for two years. Let's assume football (the US kind)is what you want. You buy the game engine, with a current roster of characters. The production company has the basic gameplay, and all of the available game modes available at launch. 4 months down the line you release DLC that updates fields, rebalances players that have been inaccurately depicted, and adds some other features to current game modes. DLC pack two updates rookie line-ups, so that players can hold their own drafts, and take personal interest in upcoming events during season down-time. This package is a must for everyone who loves their sport, and needs to feel that they have personal links to their team of choice. The final DLC package updates teams to their current rosters, adding and subtracting players to make the professional team rosters accurate. Three DLC packages cover everything for the whole year.

Both developer and consumer benefit from this arrangement. As a consumer you can skip two of the three DLC packages, and still wind-up with an accurate yearly sports game. The die-hard fans still get their most up to date information, but the casual crowd doesn't have to buy a whole new game each year. Developers get two year to work on the fundamentals of a game. Two development years will offer time to rewrite the basic engine, tweak the UI, and generally learn from and improve the mechanics of the game. Smaller teams could work on the DLC packages, saving development money, but providing a constant revenue stream for the development team.

Let's then talk pricing. $50-60 for the base game is given. The initial DLC packages could be around $10-15. This would be fair for new stadiums, and new experimental gameplay modes. All of this being predicated on a substantial enough amount of content being generated. Additionally, this proving ground couldbe used to test new ideas for things to be included in the next major release. $10 maximum for the second package is a reasonable price. This package will amount to a bunch of new skins, and that's about it. Finally, the game update. This one is tricky, but I could see $15-25 dollars. You're functionally working on a complete team update, which is akin to the yearly games that are purchased now. If you campare it to the $50-60, then the price is a great deal. I believe this update would not necessarily be the most labor intensive, but the price premium would be justified. If you're keeping tally that's a $50 maximum ($35 minimum), for a functionally fully updated game, every year. The smaller size, and updated DLC will do wonders for longevity. Casual gamers will have the option to spend $25 per year for a time accurate roster, which should satisfy everyone.

Does this not seem like one of the rare instances where DLC might drastically improve a game? If you can't tell, this is my response to:

Comparing sports sims to FPS just doesn't work. I'm not a die hard Madden or any other sports series buyer. But usually the people who are are the ones who have been buying it since SNES, the roster updates and small changes they don't mind. The people that keep these franchises afloat probably don't play many other franchises, so they spend their $60 a year on the new Madden and are set.

Click to expand...

So, what can I say in summary. Yes, yearly shooters and sports games have a lot in common. Yes, COD is suffering from the same stagnation that sports games are (taken from an only mildly biased perspective, as truly removing bias is impossible). Yes, I am a bit long winded. And finally; yes, I will love to see COD relegated to being released every few years, as I think sports games should be.

I'm actually quite speculative of what they are going to do for a setting. There's no way they would try Black Ops 2, because people (despite buying it) were pretty spiteful of Black Ops, to the point where it was just as popular in terms of active players as MW2. They can really only go forwards or backwards, and Future Warfare is an stupidly easy title for them to chose...

Unless they're building the game off a new engine and really do something with the game mechanics in a meaningful way, i won't be getting it. Didn't buy Black Ops, not buying buying MW3 and i can already write this one off too if they continue to push sales solely off the name.

1) A properly structured game can have a non-static roster. Player skins/models are easy to add assuming that you have a console save file for the new players. Last time I checked a simple table of mathematical values describes each player, and the player skin is just a texture over a wireframe model. This is very easy to include in a DLC package.

Click to expand...

FIFA 12 allows you to use custom leagues and teams. Be A Pro allows you to start from scratch with your custom player. Multiplay BAP would mean there would be several custom players playing in teams.

Football Manager 2012 has the Editor and the Resource Archiver for a reason.

2) They are a different genre, so what. My point was not that they were the same genre, it was that the fundamental structures of both are very similar. They exist by having a largely unchanged set of core mechanics, with a few set dressing changes between revisions. Madden has remained largely unchanged, with the exception of graphics, since the early 2000's. Choose a play, run the play with a potential play shift, repeat. COD has been choose a class (rock-paper-scissors balanced), shoot a guy, repeat. Honestly, this mechanic hasn't ever changed for shooters, but the real disappointment is less the acceptable multiplayer and more the lackluster story missions.

Click to expand...

Of course there won't be much change in sports games tactics/strategy-wise. I can't say anything about Madden, but "Choose a play, run the play with a potential play shift, repeat" wouldn't work anymore in FIFA 12 and Football Manager 2012. ESPECIALLY FM2012. That's why it's widely considered as one of the, if not THE, greatest sports simulation games ever. In FM2010 I reached around 2043 in-game. My FM2011 game reached 2038. I'm playing FM2012 right now but I'm just halfway through the first season. I would guess that FM is unique among sports games however because it's still a PC game. There's some slightly underwhelming console versions however.

If you assume that the only thing they buy is yearly sports games you say they are willing to settle for rehashed crap. Nobody I know that owns sports games only plays sports games, and it stands to reason that there would be very few people out there, aside from die hard fans, that would fit into this category.

Click to expand...

Well considering that original console games are actually a rarity over here, people can afford to buy the sports games yearly.

Assuming that this supposition is correct, you can still have DLC that will earn a publisher money. Imagine three yearly DLC packs, on a game that lasts for two years. Let's assume football (the US kind)is what you want. You buy the game engine, with a current roster of characters. The production company has the basic gameplay, and all of the available game modes available at launch. 4 months down the line you release DLC that updates fields, rebalances players that have been inaccurately depicted, and adds some other features to current game modes. DLC pack two updates rookie line-ups, so that players can hold their own drafts, and take personal interest in upcoming events during season down-time. This package is a must for everyone who loves their sport, and needs to feel that they have personal links to their team of choice. The final DLC package updates teams to their current rosters, adding and subtracting players to make the professional team rosters accurate. Three DLC packages cover everything for the whole year.

Click to expand...

DLCs would never work over here, especially if you have to download them.

Both developer and consumer benefit from this arrangement. As a consumer you can skip two of the three DLC packages, and still wind-up with an accurate yearly sports game. The die-hard fans still get their most up to date information, but the casual crowd doesn't have to buy a whole new game each year. Developers get two year to work on the fundamentals of a game. Two development years will offer time to rewrite the basic engine, tweak the UI, and generally learn from and improve the mechanics of the game. Smaller teams could work on the DLC packages, saving development money, but providing a constant revenue stream for the development team.

Let's then talk pricing. $50-60 for the base game is given. The initial DLC packages could be around $10-15. This would be fair for new stadiums, and new experimental gameplay modes. All of this being predicated on a substantial enough amount of content being generated. Additionally, this proving ground couldbe used to test new ideas for things to be included in the next major release. $10 maximum for the second package is a reasonable price. This package will amount to a bunch of new skins, and that's about it. Finally, the game update. This one is tricky, but I could see $15-25 dollars. You're functionally working on a complete team update, which is akin to the yearly games that are purchased now. If you campare it to the $50-60, then the price is a great deal. I believe this update would not necessarily be the most labor intensive, but the price premium would be justified. If you're keeping tally that's a $50 maximum ($35 minimum), for a functionally fully updated game, every year. The smaller size, and updated DLC will do wonders for longevity. Casual gamers will have the option to spend $25 per year for a time accurate roster, which should satisfy everyone.

Click to expand...

Prevailing prices for console games of a dubious kind (which dominates the local market) is at around $15-$25 converted. You're asking people over here to pay more for something less.

So, what can I say in summary. Yes, yearly shooters and sports games have a lot in common. Yes, COD is suffering from the same stagnation that sports games are (taken from an only mildly biased perspective, as truly removing bias is impossible). Yes, I am a bit long winded. And finally; yes, I will love to see COD relegated to being released every few years, as I think sports games should be.

Click to expand...

It's stagnation for games like CoD but not for sports games. How can it be "stagnation" when ever since sports games were made (which are focused on seasonal sports) they have always been done on a yearly-basis?

you're taking your niche area and extrapolating it across the world. i would agree with the hoff, that the majority of gamers do not just buy sports games. the majority of people who buy sports games and support those titles, do not JUST buy sports games. he said DLC when it could easily be expansions on disc. he gave a price based on his local going rate and you mock that it doesn't match yours? you are looking to discredit a valid argument.

either you are being dense or purposefully agitating him. scale the prices he gave to your local rate, it's obvious he meant for the prices to come out as less - you saying otherwise is simply a non argument. you have nothing to say so you try to shift the topic. nothing you have said has negated his very real and good point: that full price for minimal updates is ridiculous. charging $60USD every year for something that has nothing new except statistical information, or a few models, seems wrong.

it seems just as wrong imo as charging $60 for some new map ARRANGEMENTS, as the resources are recycled and not new to MW3 anyway!

Here's where we disagree. You obviously enjoy the sports games, and that is where we differ. You obviously think that custom team builders are enough of a new feature. You obviously don't particularly like the comparison I drew between the two. Both are stagnating, the only difference is how long that they have been stangating.

I can, in the abstract, understand where you are coming from. In reality, this is the exact reason games like Call of Duty and various sports games sell well.

Defend whatever game is your favorite, and dismiss the apt comparison as "foolish" (you used the word stupid, but I will chalk that up to anger because I am "attacking" the games that you feel some personal need to defend). You obviously have a large bias, and are unwilling to extract your own personal opinions from the equation.

To be honest, I used sports games as an analog. You ran with the parallel, and took it as a personal affront to what you like. This is a COD thread, so I'm going to stop responding about the sports analogies (you are welcome to continue, and prove to yourself that I am wrong, but I will not continue with the point).

Edit: Thrackan and Digibucc both brought up the points before I could. Perhaps you should carefully consider where your bias comes from. I understand geography is definitely playing a role, but without geographic considerations how do you think your stance would change? Perhaps understanding each others geographical limitations is where we differ, but you really seem bent on finding a reason for my statements to be "wrong."

Thanks Captain Obvious! We get a new COD every year, didn't you know that?

I CAN'T WAIT!!!

Click to expand...

i'm glad you enjoy watching the future of games development go down the crapper. i hope you recognize that the business model activision practices is not good if what you want is quality and innovation.
if you don't want those, then by all means you should be happy about CoD's dominance. but if you want games to improve before asking for another $60 every year, you should think twice about how readily you jump to their defense.

CoD fanboys are a pretty ravenous bunch. I used to like the series, but it's so watered down now with little in terms of progress. I have friends that gobble up every new release with little thought to exactly what they're paying for and it makes me sad.

In a perfect world, CoD4 would have been released and Activision would have released yearly expansion packs which include the incrimental upgrades, perk balances, weapons, maps and game modes instead of marketing an expansion as a fully featured, all new title.

The brains behind CoD have left the company that owns the rights to the game. There will be no more innovation. Infinity Ward didn't develop the game that they created by themselves, but instead were assisted by Raven and Sledgehammer.

I can guarantee you that there is now another MW title in the works aimed for 2 years from now, on top of what Treyarch will be releasing next year.

To each his own, I stopped spending my money on CoD with this release. I used to love playing me come CoD.